Drug Scientists Have More Integrity Than CC Scientists

[wayneL]

The Chairman of the UK drugs advisory panel has been sacked for stating the scientific truth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...t-quits-panel-over-sacking-of-David-Nutt.html

Snips:

A prominent member of the government's drugs advisory panel has resigned in protest over the treatment of the committee's chairman Professor David Nutt

Dr King, who worked for the Forensic Science Service (FSS) for 30 years, has been associated with the drugs advisory panel for 15 years.

He was head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit for 10 years before his retirement from FSS in 2001, when he became a co-opted member of the Home Office advisory panel.

Dr King, who became a full member last year, said the Government's attitude to the panel has been shifting in recent years and home secretaries now had a ''pre-defined political agenda'' when they asked for its expert advice.

''It's being asked to rubber stamp a pre-determined position,'' he said.

"I think it shows a rather poor understanding of the value of science."

Actually my title is misleading. There are thousands of scientists willing to speak the truth against the proven pre-defined political agenda of the IPCC. They just don't get coverage.

 

[ghotib]

Actually Wayne, your message is misleading. There are thousands of scientists willing to speak out against the status quo in all fields of science, and they get coverage among scientists if their work stands up to the requirements of science. That means understanding the status quo and showing the data and the methods that you believe back your new or different interpretation. It's just not enough to state a bald conclusion and declare that everyone else is wrong. And when scientists fight against a new idea, it's not just because they have a vested interest in funding or in their own existing work. It's because the new idea has to make sense within the entire body of existing science and that can be very hard to demonstrate. Controversy is at the heart of science and scientists have about 4 centuries of experience at dealing with it. Not saying they've got a perfect system, but it's massively better than you're acknowledging.

Science doesn't happen in a vacuum and certainly politics (academic as well as general) sometimes influences what gets done. But repeatedly smearing the scientists and the science of human-caused climate change is not justified. More importantly, it doesn't make them wrong.

There is now evidence from many different fields the climate is changing faster than at any time in human history. To date the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is that human activity, primarily through the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, has established a trend to rising global average temperatures, and that the effects of this trend on life as we know it are likely to be profound. No other explanation for the demonstrated rise in temperature fits all the facts. Maybe there is another explanation, but it's not one that has been presented so far.

We've only got one planet to experiment with. When scientists have so much evidence that it's changing in ways that mean catastrophe for their fellow human beings, what do you expect them to do? Keep quiet about it? What kind of integrity is that?

Ghoti

 

[Julia]

Well, Ghoti, scientists in some organisations do make every effort to suppress the contributions of their peers at times for reasons best understood by themselves. Don't underestimate the political agenda.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html?referrer=email

 

[MrBurns]

When money and power are involved, truth and justice don't stand a chance.

 

[Agentm]

We've only got one planet to experiment with. When scientists have so much evidence that it's changing in ways that mean catastrophe for their fellow human beings, what do you expect them to do? Keep quiet about it? What kind of integrity is that?

Ghoti

depends who is paying your wages..

sometime you get paid more if your making a song and dance about something you cant prove but have a hunch about, and instead of buttoning up and saying zip until you know what you talking about, then why say it anyways?

carbon causing climate change is such a far away place with the fairies as one could go.. climate will always change as things are changed for them..

if you remove the carpet, and expose the raw ground below, it feels hot underfoot.. and so your river temperatures increase, and then the oceans..


right now the whole thing with climate is that its most likely that the global clear felling of trees over the past hundreds of years is the most probable cause of the inability of the planet to absorb carbon, and in all likely hood the removal of 1 and 3/4 of the earths lungs by this method of deforestation is the most practical reason for the climate change.

the increase in carbon is a factor in the equation, not the cause..

in australia you cleared off so much of the tall forrests that the direct impact was a 15 degree change on ground zero where these magnificent forrests stood.. once we start to regrow these regions again and think these practices of clear felling through, a huge impact can be made on the carbon levels, which are not really the issue but only a bi product....

you know, the dominant life forces of today that can dominate the landscape, and they certainly are, but once you cut the lungs out of a life cycle of a planet.. your in for a cardiac arrest..

literally

 

[spooly74]

Well, Ghoti, scientists in some organisations do make every effort to suppress the contributions of their peers at times for reasons best understood by themselves. Don't underestimate the political agenda.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html?referrer=email

"The CSIRO is currently maintaining they have the right to ban the written version of this paper from publication by myself as a representative of the organisation and by myself as a private citizen."

FFS
That's just appalling.

Well and truly poisoned.

 

[wayneL]

Well, Ghoti, scientists in some organisations do make every effort to suppress the contributions of their peers at times for reasons best understood by themselves. Don't underestimate the political agenda.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html?referrer=email

Holy Profanities!!

Can there be any further doubt about the corruption of climate science.

The answer to anyone but those with a religious CC zeal is - NO!

 

[wayneL]

Actually Wayne, your message is misleading. There are thousands of scientists willing to speak out against the status quo in all fields of science, and they get coverage among scientists if their work stands up to the requirements of science. That means understanding the status quo and showing the data and the methods that you believe back your new or different interpretation. It's just not enough to state a bald conclusion and declare that everyone else is wrong. And when scientists fight against a new idea, it's not just because they have a vested interest in funding or in their own existing work. It's because the new idea has to make sense within the entire body of existing science and that can be very hard to demonstrate. Controversy is at the heart of science and scientists have about 4 centuries of experience at dealing with it. Not saying they've got a perfect system, but it's massively better than you're acknowledging.

Science doesn't happen in a vacuum and certainly politics (academic as well as general) sometimes influences what gets done. But repeatedly smearing the scientists and the science of human-caused climate change is not justified. More importantly, it doesn't make them wrong.

There is now evidence from many different fields the climate is changing faster than at any time in human history. To date the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is that human activity, primarily through the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, has established a trend to rising global average temperatures, and that the effects of this trend on life as we know it are likely to be profound. No other explanation for the demonstrated rise in temperature fits all the facts. Maybe there is another explanation, but it's not one that has been presented so far.

We've only got one planet to experiment with. When scientists have so much evidence that it's changing in ways that mean catastrophe for their fellow human beings, what do you expect them to do? Keep quiet about it? What kind of integrity is that?

Ghoti

I can only implore you to read the likes of Roger Pielke Snr. A pro AGW scientist who repeatedly torpedoes the IPCC position with logic, science and fact.

The truth of human impact on climate change is totally divergent with CO2 emission.

If only this were admitted, we could have a real and positive impact on it. While there is the CO2 agenda of the IPCC for reasons known only to themselves (and probably more to do with energy security... and perhaps even a more sinister agenda), the planet has no hope against continued pollution (of which co2 is not one of them).

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Well, Ghoti, scientists in some organisations do make every effort to suppress the contributions of their peers at times for reasons best understood by themselves. Don't underestimate the political agenda.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html?referrer=email

Very interesting Julia. This fits into the growing trend of scientists that are questioning the false Al Gore GW science and ultimately the real agenda, more examples.... http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

 

[Julia]

There was also a report on this in "The World Today" on Radio National.

I've looked for a link to post, have scoured the programme website, but it's nowhere to be found. Can find links to all the other items in the programme.

I've emailed the programme producer to ask for a link. If it's not forthcoming, then do we start in on the conspiracy theories?

 

[Agentm]

Very interesting Julia. This fits into the growing trend of scientists that are questioning the false Al Gore GW science and ultimately the real agenda, more examples.... http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

thank god someone thinks like i do

up till today i really thought the whole world went nuts and i was alone on this one..

great post ozwaveguy

my personal belief atm is until the deforestation issues are addressed, the importance of increasing particles in the air are extremely vital for arid regions like australia. the more we increase the ability for moisture to be present in the air the better

my view is burning of coal with more emissions for the next few decades may have far more beneficial effects on southern australian regions than any thing else.. besides bushfires..

we can see today the enormous moisture that is available as a result of last summers fires, and the resulting pollutants that envelope antartica and the great southern ocean. and in victoria we are having more and more rain this winter and spring. despite the onset of el whatever they call it..

primary to our existence is water, and the air pollutants can be a great substitute whilst the years pass before the considerations are given for reforestation. but unless there is some serious change to how we view global vegetation, its going to be scorched earth for decades to come..

a little common sense, less greed and clambering for a new tax system, and i think once people start concentrating on cause and not concentrating on the effect then a change may be a coming

imho unfortunately more pain for a few more decades before the light switch comes on for the majority

 

[Timmy]

There was also a report on this in "The World Today" on Radio National.

I've looked for a link to post, have scoured the programme website, but it's nowhere to be found. Can find links to all the other items in the programme.

Here you go Julia:
It is on the World Today website, near the bottom.
Direct link also.

I've emailed the programme producer to ask for a link. If it's not forthcoming, then do we start in on the conspiracy theories?

Don't let the fact that there is a link now stop you. You are obviously unfamiliar with the genesis and propagation of conspiracy theories. Lesson 1: NEVER, EVER let the facts obstruct your theory. (There are more, I won't bore you with them).

Do yourself a favour, though. One of these hats, for you and also one for each of your pets, is essential. (Actually, with cats it really doesn't matter. They do hear the voices, but really don't give a fig for what anyone says).

 

[Gamblor]

Here you go Julia:
It is on the World Today website, near the bottom.
Direct link also.



Don't let the fact that there is a link now stop you. You are obviously unfamiliar with the genesis and propagation of conspiracy theories. Lesson 1: NEVER, EVER let the facts obstruct your theory. (There are more, I won't bore you with them).

Do yourself a favour, though. One of these hats, for you and also one for each of your pets, is essential. (Actually, with cats it really doesn't matter. They do hear the voices, but really don't give a fig for what anyone says).

Oh man that made me laugh. Bravo The cats face is priceless

 

[Gamblor]

I can only implore you to read the likes of Roger Pielke Snr. A pro AGW scientist who repeatedly torpedoes the IPCC position with logic, science and fact.

The truth of human impact on climate change is totally divergent with CO2 emission.

If only this were admitted, we could have a real and positive impact on it. While there is the CO2 agenda of the IPCC for reasons known only to themselves (and probably more to do with energy security... and perhaps even a more sinister agenda), the planet has no hope against continued pollution (of which co2 is not one of them).

Sounds like you need one of those fancy tin foil hats

 

[wayneL]

Sounds like you need one of those fancy tin foil hats

Ad hominem slur is what people use when they run out of logic.

I advise yo to read the links I have provided over the pages of this site. I could return serve with an equally illogical snipe, but refuse to plumb the depths of unintelligent discourse.

Discus science and policy instead, if you dare.

 

[wayneL]

Thanks to Fishbulb in another thread:

 

[Julia]

Here you go Julia:
It is on the World Today website, near the bottom.
Direct link also.



Don't let the fact that there is a link now stop you. You are obviously unfamiliar with the genesis and propagation of conspiracy theories. Lesson 1: NEVER, EVER let the facts obstruct your theory. (There are more, I won't bore you with them).

Do yourself a favour, though. One of these hats, for you and also one for each of your pets, is essential. (Actually, with cats it really doesn't matter. They do hear the voices, but really don't give a fig for what anyone says).

Thanks for the link. In the meantime, the ABC producer kindly responded to my email and provided the link.
I'm not sure whether the rest of your post is meant to be insulting.
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories about anything and would have thought it was reasonably obvious my remark about conspiracies was tongue in cheek.

Out of interest, however, what's your view about the apparent suppression of the views of an individual CSIRO scientist?

 

[Timmy]

I'm not sure whether the rest of your post is meant to be insulting.
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories about anything and would have thought it was reasonably obvious my remark about conspiracies was tongue in cheek.

Insulting? Of course not! I saw your joke and responded with one. Sorry.

 

[ghotib]

I gather nobody who's posted on this thread got around to reading either the full article Julia linked or any of Dr Spash's publications.

1. From the article in the Australian it's clear that Dr Spash is an economist and his paper criticises the Rudd government's proposed ETS on the grounds that it is not an economically effective way to reduce carbon emissions. There's not a hint that he attacks, challenges, or doubts that humans have put and continue to put dangerous levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. Neither the Australian's article nor Dr Spash are talking about the science of climate change.

2. The people attempting to prevent publication of the paper are described as CSIRO managers who claim that the CSIRO charter forbids CSIRO scientists from commenting on government or opposition policy. The charter was introduced last year, and I don't know whether the managers are correct in their interpretation. I do know that CSIRO scientists have complained of censorship before, notably in 2005 when there were allegations that work demonstrating a dangerous greenhouse effect was being suppressed. For this thread the point is not that the alleged censorship is bad; the point is that it's not being done by scientists defending a scientific position.

3. Dr Spash's website http://www.clivespash.org/main.php?page=home&style=default. It won't tell anyone much about the scientific discussions of climate and how it's changing, but it might be interesting for those interested in policy.

4. Wayne, I have read Pielke - not everything he's written and I don't follow his blog regularly, but a fair bit. I agree with him and with you that there are many ways to address environmental damage. I also agree that changes to fix one problem are likely to fix others. My disagreement is that you (and Pielke I think) dismiss out of hand the role of carbon, mainly in the form of CO2, in global climate change. Starting with your post about The Global Warming Swindle I've done my best to follow up the references you give and I find them unconvincing. One very simple reason is that so many come from the same scientists and cite the same (often old) studies, usually not their own. Where is the new work? Where are the left-field studies with the unexpected results? As far as I can see they don't exist.

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

My disagreement is that you (and Pielke I think) dismiss out of hand the role of carbon, mainly in the form of CO2, in global climate change. Starting with your post about The Global Warming Swindle I've done my best to follow up the references you give and I find them unconvincing. One very simple reason is that so many come from the same scientists and cite the same (often old) studies, usually not their own. Where is the new work? Where are the left-field studies with the unexpected results? As far as I can see they don't exist.

Ghoti

You haven't read me very well then. I have explicitly stated that co2 may have some role in CC, but that it is minor with no relation to the IPCC model. I have posted links which discredit IPCC modelling on a number of fronts. The IPCC model is essentially dead and kept in an upright position - Weekend AT Bernie's" style - by a corrupt organisation with an ulterior motive

The major player is land use and general pollution.

Re Global Warming Swindle. It is no worse a work than An Inconvenient Truth.

Both suffer from OTT junk science, both ignore the real problems and the real solutions.

Meanwhile these people (IPCC) condone all sorts of pollution by their silence, and sometimes actively create bigger problems.

Ethanol as fuel is a prime example of gross the stupidity and counter-productive measures espoused by "them".